Tum'at Tsara'at - Chapter 10

E. g., white hair or healthy flesh in a baheret [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 7:4)].

Healthy flesh in a baheret is a sign of impurity. If, however, the healthy flesh is burned, it is no longer considered as healthy and hence, does not serve as such a sign.

I.e., not only the signs of impurity, but the entire blemish.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 308) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 584) count this charge as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

As stated in Eruvin 96a, Makkot 13b, et al, whenever the Torah uses the term hishamar, translated as “Be... careful,” a negative commandment is involved.

As is the minimum punishment for the violation of a negative commandment.

Two white hairs are sufficient to render him impure (Chapter 2, Halachah 1).

Which is sufficient to render him impure (Chapter 3, Halachah 1).

Lashes mandated by Rabbinic decree which are given as punishment for the violation of Rabbinic commandments and for other purposes. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:3, 18:5, which mentions this punishment.

The bracketed addition is evident from Chapter 8, Halachot 2-3.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 307) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 170) consider this as a separate negative commandment and counted as one of the 613 mitzvot.

If, however, he removes the hair with another instrument, he is not liable for lashes. The Ra’avad objects to this leniency.

I.e., although the signs of impurity were removed as a result of his actions, he is not liable, because he did not perform the act of removal. His actions were merely an indirect cause.

For at the time of the inspection, he did not have any signs of impurity.

As stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 9, when a person is isolated because of a tzara’at affliction, a judgment is only rendered on the seventh and thirteenth days.

In this instance as well, at the time the priest inspects him, he will not have any signs of impurity, nor had he manifested them beforehand. As Nega’im 7:4 relates, this question was posed by Rabbi Akiva to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua. They did not know how to answer him. On the basis of logical deduction, Rabbi Akiva proved that the person should be considered as pure. The Rambam cites the Tosefta (Nega’im 3:4; apparently his version was slightly different from the standard published text) as stating that the other Sages accepted Rabbi Akiva’s view.

Because at present, he does not have a baheret with signs of impurity and he did not remove the baheret intentionally.

This is a stringency imposed by Rabbinic decree. The rationale is that even if the tzara’at would cover the person's entire body, one might argue that it would not have affected the flesh immediately next to it [Kessef Mishneh, based on the Tosefta (Nega’im 3:5)].

Leaving the flesh around the baheret.

Because even if the person had not pulled the hair off, there would not have been two white hairs on his baheret.

Because it was his deeds that removed the signs of impurity. The one remaining white hair could not serve as a sign of impurity alone. We do not say that since the one white hair fell off naturally, the other would also have fallen off naturally.

Here as well, the sign of impurity would have disappeared independent of the person’s actions.

Also in this instance, enough of the baheret to render the person impure remained — and disappeared naturally — after the person’s action.

Because the remaining portion of healthy skin was not large enough to render the person impure. Thus it was the person’s actions that removed the signs of impurity.

And thus the positive mitzvah of removing the foreskin will conflict with the prohibition against cutting off a baheret.

According to law, a circumcision must be performed on the eighth day of a baby's life. If, due to circumstances or even if intentionally, the circumcision was not performed on that day, it must be performed afterwards. Even so, the act is considered as a positive commandment and supersedes the prohibition against removing a baheret.

This is a general principle applicable in other instances as well. See Hilchot Nizirut 7:15, Hilchot Yibbum 6:11, Hilchot Shechitah 13:19, et al. See also the following halachah.

I.e., he becomes pure. He is required to undergo the purification process to be described in Chapter 11 and bring the sacrifices required of one who is purified from tzara’at as described in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 112) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 171) count this charge as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The laws applying to a woman afflicted by tzara’at are mentioned in Halachah 8.

The Rambam is employing the interpretation of the Hebrew termperu’a suggested by Rabbi Akiva in Mo’ed Kattan 15a. However, others interpret that term as meaning to let one’s hair grow unkempt. Indeed, in Sefer HaMitzvot (op. cit., see also negative commandment 163), the Rambam follows that interpretation.

See Hilchot Evel 5:19.

The verse mentions all the acts mentioned by the Rambam.

As stated in the previous halachah. According to the Rambam’s ruling here, the negative commandment involved is the commandment for a priest not to have tom garments [see Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 5:6; Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 1:10, Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 164)]. As mentioned in those sources, there is a more severe dimension of this commandment relevant to the High Priest than to others and he is forbidden to have tom priestly garments.
As mentioned, there are others who interpret the term peru’a as leaving one’s hair unkempt. That is also forbidden to a High Priest (ibid.). According to these views, that prohibition is also superseded by the obligation mentioned here.

See Hilchot Eve! 5:20.

The Rambam is alluding to the three areas of Torah study: mikra (Scripture), Mishnah (the summary of Torah Law), and talmud (the in-depth study of Torah Law). See Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:11. Not only may this person study individually, he may teach others as well. See a parallel ruling regarding a person under a ban of ostracism (Hilchot Talmud Torah 7:4). A mourner, by contrast, is forbidden to study Torah (Hilchot Evel, Loc. cit.:1).

As mourners are forbidden (ibid.).

Even though there is a Rabbinic commandment to honor these days by washing and wearing special clean clothes in preparation (Hilchot Shabbat 30:2-3).

There is a difference of opinion among the Sages (Mo’ed Kattan 7b) whether a person afflicted with tzara’at is permitted to engage in physical intimacy. However, other sources — including Nega’im 14:2 — indicate that the act is permitted and the Rambam favors their ruling (Kessef Mishneh). Support for the lenient view is drawn from the fact that King Yotam was conceived by his father, Uziyahu, during the time Uziyahu was afflicted with tzara’at. Uziyahu’s conduct can be used as a standard, because, although he sinned in desiring the High Priesthood, in general, he was a righteous man.

Even though these latter activities are forbidden to mourners (Hilchot Evel, op. cit.). The Kessef Mishneh explains that Mo’ed Kattan 15b leaves the question whether or not these activities are forbidden unresolved. Therefore, the Rambam rules leniently. On that basis, the Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam does not mention that a person afflicted with tzara’at may perform work (although a mourner may not) for this question is also left unresolved in the above source.

See Halachah 12. See also Rashi’s commentary to the prooftext which states that tzara’at comes as a punishment for malicious gossip. Since he caused separation between others, he is forced to live alone.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:13 which mentions this as one of the factors that cause the walled cities in Eretz Yisrael to be considered as holier than the remainder of the land.

Sotah 23b derives this from Leviticus 13:44 which speaks of “a man afflicted by tzara’at.” That can be understood as an exclusion: a man and not a woman. Note Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 112) speaks of an afflicted woman cloaking her face.

A person whose genitalia are masked by a mound of flesh and it is impossible to detect his gender. See Hilchot Ishut 2:25.

A person who has both male and female sexual organs (ibid.:24).

Hence since the fulfillment of a Scriptural commandment is involved, they must adopt the stringency (Kessef Mishneh).

The obligation for a person deemed impure because of tzara’at to shave his body and bring two fowl is described at the beginning of the following chapter.

Nor must he cover his head or rend his garments. Tosafot Yom Tov adds that in isolation, a person need not cover his face. Moreover, a person who was isolated for tzara’at is not obligated to bring the sacrifices mentioned in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 4, as is one who was deemed definitively impure (Kessef Mishneh).

See the definition of this term in Hilchot Tuma’at Meit 5:7.

See Hilchot Tuma’at Meit 1:5, 6:3; Hilchot Keilim 13:1-2.

Even when the person carrying him never touched him, e.g., the impure person sat on a chair and another person carried the chair without touching him.

Which itself does not contract ritual impurity.

And thus he never touched the object on which he sat or lay.

A man who has three successive emissions from his sexual organ similar to those resulting from a gonorrheal infection. (See Hilchot Mechusrei Kaparah 2:1-2).

A woman who experienced uterine bleeding for three consecutive days at a time other than the days when she usually menstruates (ibid. 1:6).
With regard to the concept that such individuals impart impurity to the objects over which he lies or sits even if there is a substance intervening between them, see Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 6:5.

I.e., immerse in a mikveh.

As recorded in the Sifra to that verse.

See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch. 7, for more details regarding how impurity is imparted in this manner.

For the tree is considered an ohel (“tent” or “shelter”). Since the person afflicted by tzara’at is standing there, it is considered as his “dwelling” and anyone or anything that is under it at the same time, even when he or it merely pass through, contracts impurity.

Since the afflicted person only passed under the tree and did not stand there, it is not considered as his "dwelling." Hence, he does not impart impurity.

The Kessef Mishneh gives two rationales for this ruling: a) Nega’im 5:1 states: “All doubtful situations regarding blemishes are pure;” b) since the tree is located in the public domain, the principle “any doubtful situation in the public domain is pure” can be applied.

When a person inserts his head and the majority of his body into a structure, it is considered as if he inserted his entire body [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 13:8)).

A partition of this height, encompassing this area, creates a separate domain for him, even though he is visible to the others praying there [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 13:8)).

By touching them, alternatively, by pausing to stand and causing the structure to become his dwelling (ibid.:12). Because of the first rationale, this restriction should also be applied to other impure people [ibid. (Zavim 3:2)].